I recently read the following widely
circulated statement that has prompted me to make a Position
Statement.

"Brother Camp
holds a very non-biblical view of how a church can start. He
claims that a church does not need to come from another
church."

In answer to this statement, I want to
simply set forth how I believe churches are to be started.

First, I
believe the primary way in which churches are to be started is
that God calls a man or men to do mission work and the church and
pastor/pastors where they are members and the Holy Spirit who
called them, send them forth to the work to which God has called
them. Acts 13:1-4 Now there were in the church that was at
Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon
that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which
had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they
ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate
me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3
And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on
them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the
Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed
to Cyprus.

If that is very
non-biblical, I plead guilty.

Second, I
believe that those missionaries when sent forth should go
wherever the Lord leads them and as they go they should be
preaching the gospel at every opportunity. Acts 13:4-5 So
they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia;
and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they were at
Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the
Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

Again,
if that is a very non-biblical thing to do, I plead guilty.

Third,
I hold that when converts are made they should be baptized and
churches should be constituted as was done under the guidance of
Paul and his co-workers wherever they went. (The record of this
is given in Acts 13 to the end of the book.)

If
that is very non-biblical, I am guilty of believing it.

Fourth, I
firmly believe that these missionaries sent forth by the church
should move from one field to another as God leads them to do so.
Acts 16:10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we
endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the
Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them. These
church-sent missionaries did not sit and wait for word from
Antioch giving them permission to make this move.

If
this is "very non-biblical" I plead guilty. Paul and
his co-workers never sat and waited for Antioch to determine
where they should go next when they were finished in a location.
I suppose that the reason some do not make a move without their
church's approval is fear of losing their support. Or, they may
trust the church's guidance more than the Holy Spirit's leading.

Fifth,
I hold that there is no record in Scripture where any church in
the New Testament voted to start a specific church any place at
any time.

If
that is "very non-biblical," someone should show me
Scripture where such a record is found. Presumption, supposition,
interpolation, interjection, and eisegesis do not substitute for
"thus saith the Lord."

Sixth,
I hold that missionaries who have been sent forth by a church
should occasionally, as the Lord leads, return to that church and
report to them what the Lord has done. Acts 14:27 And when
they were come, and had gathered the church together, they
rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened
the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

In the
light of what some believe there are some very amazing things in
this verse.

They
rehearsed all that God had done with them Obviously this
reveals they had done the work without getting a church vote
on the things they didwhere they went, whom they
baptized, churches that were organized, etc.

It
also reveals that this church, Antioch, which had sent them
forth, was just now learning of how God had opened the door
of faith unto the Gentiles. They had baptized these Gentiles
and formed churches of them and Antioch did not even know
they were doing it.

Again,
if this is "very non-biblical" view, I am guilty.

Seventh, I do
not believe the missionaries sent forth from Antioch operated
what are known today as missions with members of the mission
actually being members of Antioch until such time as Antioch saw
fit to send the pastor to the specific city and country to
organize them into a church.

If
this is a "very non-biblical" stand, all any have to do
is show me a "mission" that is mentioned in Scripture.
I suggest that operating "missions" is more
"non-biblical" than the position I hold.

Eighth, I
believe there may be other instances in which a group of
scripturally baptized Christians who have been scattered to the
same area from other areas, might form a church as the scattered
disciples did at Antioch. Acts 11:19-26 19 Now they which
were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about
Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch,
preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. 20 And some of
them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to
Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21
And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number
believed, and turned unto the Lord. 22 Then tidings of these
things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem:
and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as
Antioch. 23 Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was
glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they
would cleave unto the Lord. 24 For he was a good man, and full of
the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the
Lord. 25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: 26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it
came to pass, that a whole year they assembled temselves with the
church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called
Christians first in Antioch.

Again,
if that is "very non-biblical" I plead guilty. If
someone could show me where this group operated as a mission from
the church at Jerusalem until Barnabas went down, I will change
my view. If someone can show me where the church in Jerusalem
voted to receive any of those folks in Antioch into its
membership and then voted to grant them letters for the purpose
of organizing the church at Antioch, I will recant. If someone
can show me where the Jerusalem church voted to organize its
members in Antioch into a church I will change.If
someone can show that the church at Jerusalem sent Barnabas to
Antioch for the specific purpose of organizing that group of
baptized believers who were already assembling together and
serving the Lord in Antioch into a church, I will seriously give
it prayerful consideration and if the evidence is there, I will
recant.

I
should point out that my position on this does not mean the church at Antioch did not
"come out" of another church. There was an informal
link of scriptural baptism. And, there was apparently an informal
link by preachers involved who had been in the church in
Jerusalem before being driven out of Jerusalem by persecution.

Ninth and finally,
I have never advocated that a group of unbaptized believers could
come together and baptize one another and form a church. Also, I
have never advocated the idea that a group of Scripturally
baptized believers who have been excluded on charges that are set
forth in Scripture as grounds for exclusion, and who have been
excluded in a Scriptural manner and attitude, could gather and
constitute themselves into a church. Those who charge that I have
advocated such are guilty of railing, an excludable offense. 1
Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep
company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or
covetous, or an idolater, or a RAILER, or a drunkard, or
an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Churches
do make mistakes and are sometimes unwilling to admit it. I am
thinking of at least five or six situations in which churches
acted in very unscriptural manners in the exclusion of members
who were later constituted into a church. Let me relate two of
those.

In the
state of Louisiana a little over 35 years ago a Pastor of a
Southern Baptist Church came to believe the doctrines of grace.
He also held to what Old Landmark Baptists held. A good group of
members came to see the doctrines of grace with him. The church
took actions that resulted in the people, with the pastor, having
to leave. They formed a New Testament Church. Most of the
Sovereign Grace, independent, Landmark Baptist Churches in the
state recognized and fellowshipped this group as a true church of
the Lord Jesus Christ.

In
another case a pastor started preaching something that a good
number of the members did not believe. On a Wednesday night he
preached for approximately 3 hours and then gave an invitation
worded like this, "All of those who are willing to back me
100% on what I preach please come forward." When they went
forward, one man among them made the motion, "I move that we
exclude them," pointing to all who did not come forward.
"Them" were told they could not vote since they were
under discipline, and the group who had gone forward excluded the
ones who did not. A brother tried to intercede on their behalf a
short time later and was told "them" would not be
received back into the fellowship of the church unless they were
willing to pledge themselves to support the pastor 100% on what
he preached. Since they believed him to be in error, they could
not pledge such a thing and the two parties were not reconciled.
The excluded members were received into the Beverly Manor Baptist
Church (of which I later became pastor) on statements of faith
and scriptural baptism and were formed into a new church a short
time thereafter. The new church was recognized by all the
churches fellowshipping in the Illinois State Association, including
the one from which the members had been excluded. When I
went to Illinois to pastor Beverly Manor, the pastor of the
excluding church (a new pastor), the pastor of the newly formed
church, and I, the pastor of the Beverly Manor Church which
received them into its fellowshipped regularly gathered with our
wives at one of our homes and had tacos together. For the sake of
space, I will not relate other such situations with which I am
familiar but there are many similar to these two of which I have
a good deal knowledge.

If
anyone considers what I have stated to be "very
non-biblical" I will be glad to hear from you with proof of
the same.

Here I stand. I
will not be persuaded or moved by false accusations and
misrepresentations. I will not be moved by long established
traditions. I will not be moved by suppositons, presumptions,
interpolations, interjections, eisegesis, and other things where
folks read into Scripture things that are not there. I will not
even be moved by history that is not sustained by
Holy Writ.

I will
search the Scriptures with anyone. I desire to know the way of
the Lord more perfectly. I am not infallible. But, Dear Brethren,
I must have Scripture. I will change if shown to be in error by
the Word of God.